6 33. On August 1, 2005, Mr. Fernández Saré submitted comments on the communication of June 29, 2005, remitted by Messrs. Pacheco Munayco, Atauje Montes, Carranza Rodríguez and Camargo Matencio (supra para. 29). 34. On October 20, 2005, after the President of the Court had made a preliminary review of the application, the Secretariat notified it, together with the appendixs, to the State and to the persons designated as the common intervenors of the alleged victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the common intervenors”). It also informed the State of the time limit for answering the application and appointing its representatives in the proceedings. In addition, the Secretariat advised the parties that, given the failure of the representatives to reach an agreement on the designation of a common intervenor, the Court had decided, in accordance with Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure, that the common intervenors who would represent the alleged victims were Javier Mujica Petit and Francisco Ercilio Moura. When making this designation, the Court took into account, inter alia, that: from the examination of all the powers of attorney in the Court’s file, Manuel Abad Carranza Rodríguez, Henry William Camargo Matencio, Máximo Jesús Atauje Montes and Jorge Luis Pacheco Munayco had 166 valid powers of attorney granted by alleged victims, where the purpose of the representation was more specifically for the processing of the case before the Court; that is, to represent them “before the Peruvian State, the Congress of the Republic of Peru, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” In contrast, the powers of attorney granted to Adolfo Fernández Saré, together with two of those representatives and one other person in 2003 had a limited representation purpose, which was to act before the Commission established at the domestic level; that is: “in the negotiations to be held […] before the […] Multisectoral Commission responsible for drawing up the final proposal for settling IACHR Case No. 11,830 – Dismissed Congressional Employees.” The Court also informed them that the common intervenors should submit a single brief with requests, arguments and evidence and their designation did not imply any limitation to the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to submit their own requests and arguments to the Court or to offer evidence. Consequently, in their briefs and oral arguments and in the evidence they provided, the common intervenors should channel the different claims and arguments of the various representatives of the alleged victims or their next of kin, even though these should be submitted to the Court in a single brief. Finally, with regard to the alleged victims who were not represented [as a result of the Court’s decision] or who had no representative, the Court indicated that, according to the provisions of Article 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission must safeguard their interests to ensure that they are represented effectively during the different procedural stages before the Court. 35. On November 14, 2005, Mr. Fernández Saré expressed his “concern and disagreement with the contents of the notes” of October 20, 2005, concerning the designation of the common intervenors, and asked the Court “to reconsider this designation.” On November 17, 2005, the common intervenors referred to Adolfo Fernández Saré’s note. The Court was advised of Mr. Fernández Saré’s communication; it considered that the designation had been decided and that it was not in order to make any change in this decision; accordingly, it could not agree to this request. The parties were advised accordingly on November 18, 2005. 36. On November 21, 2005, Peru appointed Oscar Manuel Ayzanoa Vigil as its Agent. Subsequently, on February 1, 2006, he was substituted by Julia Carmela Arnillas D'arrigo.